macro photography - different approaches

Shiva_42 · Jul 19, 2011

Hello All. I know this subject may be a little broad, but here goes. I'd like an education on the different physical approaches to macro photography ( i.e. Dedicated macro (micro) lens vs. extension rings vs. bellows.

I haven't purchase a macro lens yet, and hope to understand my choices better before ordering. The subject will seldom be "fixed" or stationary, so that is a definate problem with all but mobile solutions...

jake337 · Jul 19, 2011

Here is a link with some great information on macro setups.

Macrophotography by LordV - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Garbz · Jul 20, 2011

You forgot one, reverse lens.

Shiva_42 · Jul 20, 2011

Thanks for the reference. I think I'm leaning toward purchasing an actual macro lens. A medium length (90mm to 120mm) would also be a good portrait lens, so I'd kill two birds with one stone. The LordV article was very helpful, thanks again!

jake337 · Jul 20, 2011

check out the tokina atx pro d 100mm f2.8 macro, tamron 90mm variants

Shiva_42 · Jul 20, 2011

If you get a zoom, instead of prime lens, that also states "macro" capability, will it focus in the "macro" mode at ALL focal lengths, or only on a specific focal length? I will probably get a prime lens for macro, but it presents an interesting choice if macro is available at all the provided zoom factors...

jake337 · Jul 20, 2011

I don't think your Field of view will be that much different at 1:1 with a zoom at its wider end and longest end. So lets say you have a sigma 70-300mm zoom with macro capabilities, the only difference in your pictures at 70mm(at 1:1) and 300mm(at 1:1) would be how creamy your bokeh will be. Also, most zooms labeled macro will not shoot at 1:1 ratio. Maybe I'm wrong though field of view though some can chime in to say ya or nay on that note.

gsgary · Jul 20, 2011

jake337 said:
I don't think your Field of view will be that much different at 1:1 with a zoom at its wider end and longest end. So lets say you have a sigma 70-300mm zoom with macro capabilities, the only difference in your pictures at 70mm(at 1:1) and 300mm(at 1:1) would be how creamy your bokeh will be. Also, most zooms labeled macro will not shoot at 1:1 ratio. Maybe I'm wrong though field of view though some can chime in to say ya or nay on that note.

That zoom does not do 1:1 it is not a real macro lens, stick with a prime macro lens

jake337 · Jul 20, 2011

gsgary said:
jake337 said:

I don't think your Field of view will be that much different at 1:1 with a zoom at its wider end and longest end. So lets say you have a sigma 70-300mm zoom with macro capabilities, the only difference in your pictures at 70mm(at 1:1) and 300mm(at 1:1) would be how creamy your bokeh will be. Also, most zooms labeled macro will not shoot at 1:1 ratio. Maybe I'm wrong though field of view though some can chime in to say ya or nay on that note.

Click to expand...

That zoom does not do 1:1 it is not a real macro lens, stick with a prime macro lens

It was just an example of field of view at different focal lengths. The next sentence states that.

audiobomber · Jul 27, 2011

jake337 said:
I don't think your Field of view will be that much different at 1:1 with a zoom at its wider end and longest end. So lets say you have a sigma 70-300mm zoom with macro capabilities, the only difference in your pictures at 70mm(at 1:1) and 300mm(at 1:1) would be how creamy your bokeh will be. Also, most zooms labeled macro will not shoot at 1:1 ratio. Maybe I'm wrong though field of view though some can chime in to say ya or nay on that note.

No zoom can do 1:1 macro. The Sigma does 1:2, but only at 300mm focal length. At lesser focal lengths the magnification goes down.

unpopular · Jul 27, 2011

Double post

unpopular · Jul 27, 2011

I think the least expensive option that will give you high quality results is to use a quality enlarging lens and bellows extension. A 50mm enlarging lens with sufficient extension approaches microscopic scale. A focussing rail is also very useful as the enlarging lenses are in barrel.

The below example of ordinarily-sized dandelion seeds were taken using a rodenstock rodagon 50mm/2.8 with about 10cm extension. I don't remember the aperture. The subject was at the micrometer scale, and the barbs are not visible to the eye.

Some enlarging lenses coma, but this isn't usually too big of an issue unless you have something with lots of specular. My Noritsu zoom, although otherwise very good has some issues with coma when dealing with metallic subjects. Even my no-name 1950's era Japanese enlarging lens is still pretty good. I am unsure I'd spend money on a dedicated macro lens at this point when good nikkor and rodestock enlarging lenses can be had at a fraction the cost.

Offspring by ion_nine, on Flickr

Shiva_42 · Jul 28, 2011

Ok, supposing the following...: slight price differences aside, which of the following would be most recommended?

1) Nikon Nikkor 60mm f2.8 micro
2) Tamron 60mm f2.0 macro
3) Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro
4) Sigma 100mm f2.8 macro

I'm leaning toward the Tamron f2.0, or the Sigma 100mm, but am interesting in all opinions.